SCHOOL COMMITTEES AND THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18762, 16 January 1923, Page 9

SCHOOL COMMITTEES AND THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE

TO THE EDITOH. Sib, —Now that the holidays are over, will jou permit me to make one or two further observations anent the recent controversy on the rights and privileges of school committees and the propriety of the Now ; Zealand Educational Institute’s election propaganda ? Some remarks made by mo at a recent meeting of the Otago Education Board deprecating the tone of the official organ of the institute and my questioning the fairness of the institute’s propaganda through the schools, prompted an attack on me by the secretary of the institute Mr Parkinson began by tossing a few bouquets at members of senool committees, and he scolded me for my alleged failure to appreciate the splendid work being done by these public-spirited gentlemen. In my reply I ventured the request that Mr Parkinson should enunciate the institute's policy on the vital question of local control, particularly as affecting the status of school com mittees. Mr Parkinson replied by saying that “the institute has always urged that more scope should bo given for local interest, energy, and enthusiasm.” He further claims that the institute has maintained that if more responsibility were placed upon the local community this would be of groat value to the schools and to education. What does Mr Parkinson suggest? What is the institute’s policy? Mr Parkinson maintains that if there are any grievances the fault lies with the department or the boards. He says the institute is blameless if committees have been robbed of their powers. Mr Parkinson has nothing but praise for school committees. ‘‘Nothing the institute has over done,” he says, “has tended to strip them of their authority.’’ Mr Parkinson favours more responsibility being placed upon the local community. Members of school committees in this district would be glad of the opportunity of examining Mr Parkinson’s proposals. But what of the boards? The official organ of the institute answers this query. “There seems,” says INational Education of December 1, 1922, "to be an impression abroad that the New Zealand Educational Institute is hostile to boards. This is not so. It is true that the institute some time ago debated a suggested scheme for the reorganisation of the present education system on the lines of a rational education, bodrd, with local administration by education committees whoso status would be something similar to that of the boards as at present; constituted mid who would be responsible to a much larger electorate. The scheme was rejected by the institute conference. Those who talk about the institute’s hostility to the boards conveniently forget this. The only serious grievance the teachers have ever had against the boards —and that, thank goodness, has now been removed —was the iniquitous and degrading system of patronage in making appointments. . . . “Mark here, the

only serious grievance the teachers have ever had against the boards . . . has

now been removed! Then the school committees are acceptable to Mr Parkinson, and the teachers have no grievances against the boards, says the institute’s official journal. Why, then, the determined policy on the part of the department (which is largely manned in its administrative positions by ex-teachers), to strip local administrative bodies of their powers? Is it not a fact that new regulations _ are invariably submitted to the institute before being gazetted? If so, has the institute protested against this centralisation trend? In reply to Mr Parkinson’s charge that I made an attack on the teachers under cover of the Educational Institute, I have to say that if Mr Parkinson has to resort to deliberate misrepresentation to defend the institute, he must have a poor case indeed. It would be equalljr unfair to allege that other critics of the institute’s policy are similarly guilty. Now. as to the leaflets. The stand 1 took when copies of the leaflets were submitted to the Otago Education. Board has been by a large and influential section of public opinion, despite Mr Parkinson’s rather paltry insinuations that I do not know what lam talking about. First, the New Zealand Herald, on November 30. said: “While there can be no ocher feeling than admiration for the teaching profession in its zeal for education, efficiency, and progress, there can be no question that its official organisation, the Educational Institute, has committed a grave impropriety in undertaking a propaganda campaign in connection with the parliamentary elections, and particularly in using the children under its care to distribute its leaflets.” . . . “On behalf of the institute,” the Auckland journal replies, "a disclaimer of partisonship has been made, but it is inconceivable that a body of educated men and women honestly believe that such e campaign would not he inter-

preted by the great majority of readers of tho leaflets as a criticism of the present administration.” As a matter _of fact, the Herald goes on to say, the institute does intend to attack tho Government, as is shown by the following extract from the official report of its executive meeting on September 7 and 8: “The executive discussed the question of propaganda. It was generally agreed that a vigorous campaign of propaganda was necessary, in view of the Government’s economy policy and to the interests of the teachers in regard to further reductions of salary. On the motion of Mr Garry, seconded by Mr Newton, it was resolved: —That the branches be written to asking them to engage in vigorous propaganda in anticipation of the general election, suggestions and details to be referred to the local executive for elaboration.” “The direct reference to the Government,” comments the Herald, “is sufficient evidence as to whom the executive has in mind when it speaks of ‘some people’ who would like to reduce the expenditure on education. The whole proceeding is utterly reprehensible. . . . Those responsible for this

extraordinary campaign have gravely abused their ‘political rights,’ and have made a quite improper use of the_ schools.” _ On the other side of the political frontier is the Auckland Star. What does this journal say? “Teachers ought to realise, however,” says the Star, “that however good their intentions are, it is undesirable that they should approach the voter through the child in this way. It is really an interference in politics with_ the child as agent, which is open to objection for the reason that the child should be kept outside election turmoil. and the teachers should take no active part in anything that savours of party warfare. They may say that this is not party warfare, but it will hardly be doubted that the fear of reduction in education expenditure that is expressed is chiefly connected with the party in power. . . If this kind of appeal is permitted where will the line he drawn in future? . . ._ Teachers have the sympathy of the public in their zeal for the cause, but public opinion will not endorse any course that even looks like bringing politics into our schools.” _ Just one other excerpt. “We have nothing but condemnation for the circulation of these

leaflets," says the Cbnstchurch Press. "In defiance of express assurances by responsible Ministers, the institute has pretended that there is an intention to reduce the prvale of the education vote. The pretence is the underlying assumption of the leaflets: the falsehood that the education system is in danger is renented by suggestion over and over again." Mr Parkinson' sought to answer this journal. b"t he made no impression. Indeed, the Press replied by say in?: "Whatever Mr Parr or anvone else may say or think, we sav and think—and every prudent person will agree with us — that" the action of the institute was wrong, so wrong that the teachers will be wise if they consider the wisdom of securing an executive which will keen them cWr of •pnrtv politics. For that the institute, in spite of the secretary's verbal disclaimer, has been guiltv of political propaganda, cannot be gainsaid." Mr Parkinson attempts to answer my criticism by saying that tho leitlets contain no suggestion of any party bias, whatever Mr Lawrence may say to the contrary." In Mr Parkinson's iudgment my opinion mav not bo worth much, but what reply has he offered to the verv fl pi-o r p, strictures voiced by the powerful pnd influential organs of public opinion I nll ore above?—l am, etc.. T ..»..*, IT A "E! T.AWOWIff/fW